NEW ORDER OF BARBARIANS

Tape II

NO MORE SECURITY

Nothing is permanent. Streets would be
rerouted, renamed. Areas you had not seen in a while would become
unfamiliar. Among other things, this would contribute to older people
feeling that it was time to move on, they feel they couldn't even keep
up with the changes in areas that were once familiar. Buildings would be
allowed to stand empty and deteriorate, and streets would be allowed to
deteriorate in certain localities. The purpose of this was to provide
the jungle, the depressed atmosphere for the unfit. Somewhere in this
same connection he mentioned that buildings and bridges would be made so
that they would collapse after a while, there would be more accidents
involving airplanes and railroads and automobiles. All of this to
contribute to the feeling of insecurity, that nothing was safe. Not too
long after this presentation, and I think one or two even before in the
area where I live, we had some newly constructed bridge to break;
another newly constructed bridge defect discovered before it broke, and
I remember reading just scattered incidents around the country where
shopping malls would fall in right where they were filled with shoppers,
and I remember that one of the shopping malls in our area, the first
building I'd ever been in where you could feel this vibration throughout
the entire building when there were a lot of people in there, and I
remember wondering at that time whether this shopping mall was one of
the buildings he was talking about. Talking to construction people and
architects about it they would say ' "Oh no, that's good when the
building vibrates like that, that means it's flexible not rigid." Well,
maybe so, we'll wait and see. Other areas there would be well
maintained. Not every part of the city would be slums.

CRIME USED TO MANAGE SOCIETY

There would be
the created slums and other areas well maintained. Those people able to
leave the slums for better areas then would learn to better appreciate
the importance of human accomplishment. This meant that if they left the
jungle and came to civilization, so to speak, they could be proud of
their own accomplishments that they made it. There was no related
sympathy for those who were left behind in the jungle of drugs and
deteriorating neighborhoods. Then a statement that was kind of
surprising: We think we can effectively limit crime to the slum areas,
so it won't be spread heavily into better areas. I should maybe point
out here that these are obviously not word for word quotations after 20
years, but where I say that I am quoting, I am giving the general drift
of what was said close to word for word, perhaps not precisely so. But
anyhow I remember wondering, how can he be so confident that the
criminal element is going to stay where he wants it to stay? But he went
on to say that increased security would be needed in the better areas.
That would mean more police, better coordinated police efforts. He did
not say so, but I wondered at that time about the moves that were afoot
to consolidate all the police departments of suburbs around the major
cities. I think the John Birch Society was one that was saying "Support
your local police, don't let them be consolidated." and I remember
wondering if that was one of the things he had in mind about security.
It was not explicitly stated. But anyhow he went on to say there would
be a whole new industry of residential security systems to develop with
alarms and locks and alarms going into the police department so that
people could protect their wealth and their well being. Because some of
the criminal activity would spill out of the slums into better, more
affluent looking areas that looked like they would be worth
burglarizing. And again it was stated like it was a redeeming quality:
See we're generating all this more crime but look how good we are -
we're also generating the means for you to protect yourself against the
crime. A sort of repeated thing throughout this presentation was the
recognized evil and then the self forgiveness thing, well, see we've
given you a way out.

CURTAILMENT OF AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL PRE-EMINENCE

American industry came under discussion - it was
the first that I'd heard the term global interdependence or that notion.
The stated plan was that different parts of the world would be assigned
different roles of industry and commerce in a unified global system. The
continued pre-eminence of the United States and the relative
independence and self-sufficiency of the United States would have to be
changed. This was one of the several times that he said in order to
create a new structure, you first have to tear down the old, and
American industry was one example of that. Our system would have to be
curtailed in order to give other countries a chance to build their
industries, because otherwise they would not be able to compete against
the United States. And this was especially true of our heavy industries
that would be cut back while the same industries were being developed in
other countries, notably Japan. And at this point there was some
discussion of steel and particularly automobiles - I remember saying
that automobiles would be imported from Japan on an equal footing with
our own domestically produced automobiles, but the Japanese product
would be better. Things would be made so they would break and fall
apart, that is in the United States. so that people would tend to prefer
the imported variety and this would give a bit of a boost to foreign
competitors. One example was Japanese. In 1969 Japanese automobiles, if
they were sold here at all I don't remember, but they certainly weren't
very popular. But the idea was you could get a little bit disgusted with
your Ford, GM or Chrysler product or whatever because little things like
window handles would fall off more and plastic parts would break which
had they been made of metal would hold up. Your patriotism about buying
American would soon give way to practicality that if you bought
Japanese, German or imported that it would last longer and you would be
better off. Patriotism would go down the drain then. It was mentioned
elsewhere things being made to fall apart too. I don't remember specific
items or if they were even stated other than automobiles, but I do
recall of having the impression, sort of in my imagination, of a surgeon
having something fall apart in his hands in the operating room at a
critical time. Was he including this sort of thing in his discussion?
But somewhere in this discussion about things being made deliberately
defective and unreliable not only was to tear down patriotism but to be
just a little source of irritation to people who would use such things.
Again the idea that you not feel terribly secure, promoting the notion
that the world isn't a terribly reliable place. The United States was to
be kept strong in information, communications, high technology,
education and agriculture. The United States was seen as continuing to
be sort of the keystone of this global system. But heavy industry would
be transported out. One of the comments made about heavy industry was
that we had had enough environmental damage from smoke stacks and
industrial waste and some of the other people could put up with that for
a while. This again was supposed to be a redeeming quality for Americans
to accept. You took away our industry but you saved our environment. So
we really didn't lose on it.

SHIFTING POPULATIONS AND ECONOMIES -- TEARING THE SOCIAL ROOTS

And along this line there were talks about
people losing their jobs as a result of industry and opportunities for
retraining, and particularly population shifts would be brought about.
This is sort of an aside. I think I'll explore the aside before I forget
it -population shifts were to be brought about so that people would be
tending to move into the Sun Belt. They would be sort of people without
roots in their new locations, and traditions are easier to change in a
place where there are a lot of transplanted people, as compared to
trying to change traditions in a place where people grew up and had an
extended family, where they had roots. Things like new medical care
systems, if you pick up from a Northeast industrial city and you
transplant yourself to the South Sunbelt or Southwest, you'll be more
accepting of whatever kind of, for example, controlled medical care you
find there than you would accept a change in the medical care system
where you had roots and the support of your family. Also in this vein it
was mentioned (he used the plural personal pronoun we) we take control
first of the port cities - New York, San Francisco, Seattle - the idea
being that this is a piece of strategy, the idea being that if you
control the port cities with your philosophy and your way of life, the
heartland in between has to yield. I can't elaborate more on that but it
is interesting. If you look around the most liberal areas of the country
and progressively so are the sea coast cities. The heartland, the
Midwest, does seem to have maintained its conservatism. But as you take
away industry and jobs and relocate people then this is a strategy to
break down conservatism. When you take away industry and people are
unemployed and poor they will accept whatever change seems, to offer
them survival, and their morals and their commitment to things will all
give way to survival. That's not my philosophy, that's the speaker's
philosophy. Anyhow, going back to industry, some heavy industry would
remain, just enough to maintain a sort of a seed bed of industrial
skills which could be expanded if the plan didn't work out as it was
intended. So the country would not be devoid of assets and skills. But
this was just sort of a contingency plan. It was hoped and expected that
the worldwide specialization would be carried on. But, perhaps repeating
myself, one of the upshots of all of this is that with this global
interdependence the national identities would tend to be de-emphasized.
Each area depended on every other area for one or another elements of
its life. We would all become citizens of the world rather than citizens
of any one country.

SPORTS AS A TOOL OF SOCIAL CHANGE

And along these lines then we can talk about sports.
Sports in the United States was to be changed, in part as a way of
de-emphasizing nationalism. Soccer, a world-wide sport, was to be
emphasized and pushed in the United States. This was of interest because
in this area the game of soccer was virtually unknown at that time. I
had a few friends who attended an elementary school other than the one I
attended where they played soccer at their school, and they were a real
novelty. This was back in the 50's. So to hear this man speak of soccer
in this area was kind of surprising. Anyhow, soccer is seen as an
international sport and would be promoted and the traditional sport of
American baseball would be de-emphasized and possibly eliminated because
it might be seen as too American. And he discussed eliminating this.
one's first reaction would be - well, they pay the players poorly and
they don't want to play for poor pay so they give up baseball and go
into some other sport or some other activity. But he said that's really
not how it works. Actually, the way to break down baseball would be to
make the salaries go very high. The idea behind this was that as the
salaries got ridiculously high there would be a certain amount of
discontent and antagonism as people resented the athletes being paid so
much, and the athletes would begin more and more to resent among
themselves what other players were paid and would tend to abandon the
sport. And these high salaries also could break the owners and alienate
the fans. And then the fans would support soccer and the baseball fields
could be used as soccer fields. It wasn't said definitely this would
have to happen, but if the international flavor didn't come around
rapidly enough this could be done. There was some comment along the same
lines about football, although I seem to recall he said football would
be harder to dismantle because it was so widely played in colleges as
well as in the professional leagues and would be harder to tear down.
There was something else also about the violence in football that met a
psychological need that was perceived, and people have a need for this
vicarious violence. So football, for that reason, might be left around
to meet that vicarious need. The same thing is true of hockey. Hockey
had more of an international flavor and would be emphasized. There was
some foreseeable international competition about hockey and particularly
soccer. At that time hockey was international between the United States
and Canada. I was kind of surprised because I thought the speaker just
never impressed me as being a hockey fan, and I am. And it turns out he
was not. He just knew about the game and what it would do to this
changing sports program. But in any event soccer was to be the keystone
of athletics because it is already a world wide sport in South America,
Europe, and parts of Asia and the United States should get on the
bandwagon. All this would foster international competition so that we
would all become citizens of the world to a greater extent than citizens
of our own narrow nations. There was some discussion about hunting, not
surprisingly. Hunting requires guns and gun control is a big element in
these plans. I don't remember the details much, but the idea is that gun
ownership is a privilege and not everybody should have guns. Hunting was
an inadequate excuse for owning guns and everybody should be restricted
in gun ownership. The few privileged people who should be allowed to
hunt could maybe rent or borrow a gun from official quarters rather than
own their own. After all, everybody doesn't have a need for a gun, is
the way it was put. Very important in sports was sports for girls.
Athletics would be pushed for girls. This was intended to replace dolls.
Baby dolls would still be around, a few of them, but you would not see
the number and variety of dolls. Dolls would not be pushed because girls
should not be thinking about babies and reproduction. Girls should be
out on the athletic field just as the boys are. Girls and boys really
don't need to be all that different. Tea sets were to go the way of
dolls, and all these things that traditionally were thought of as
feminine would be de-emphasized as girls got into more masculine
pursuits. Just one other things I recall was that the sports pages would
be full of the scores of girls teams just right along- there with the
boys teams. And that's recently begun to appear after 20 years in our
local papers. The girls sports scores are right along with the boys
sports scores. So all of this is to change the role model of what young
girls should look to be. While she's growing up she should look to be an
athlete rather than to look forward to being a mother.

SEX AND VIOLENCE INCULCATED THROUGH ENTERTAINMENT

Entertainment. Movies would gradually be made more explicit as
regards sex and language. After all, sex and rough language are
real and why pretend that they are not? There would be pornographic
movies in the theaters and on television. VCR's were not around at that
time, but he had indicated that these cassettes would be available, and
video cassette players would be available for use in the home and
pornographic movies would be available for use on these as well as in
the neighborhood theater and on your television. He said something like:
"you'll see people in the movies doing everything you can think
of." He went on to say that all of this is intended to bring sex
out in the open. That was another comment that was made several times-
the term "sex out in the open." Violence would be made more graphic.
This was intended to desensitize people to violence. There might need to
be a time when people would witness real violence and be a part of it.
Later on it will become clear where this is headed. So there would be
more realistic violence in entertainment which would make it easier for
people to adjust. People's attitudes toward death would change. People
would not be so fearful of it but more accepting of it, and they would
not be so aghast at the sight of dead people or injured people. We don't
need to have a genteel population paralyzed by what they might see.
People would just learn to say, well I don't want that to happen to me.
This was the first statement suggesting that the plan includes numerous
human casualties which the survivors would see. This particular aspect
of the presentation came back in my memory very sharply a few years
later when a movie about the Lone Ranger came out and I took my very
young son to see it and early in the movie were some very violent
scenes. One of the victims was shot in the forehead and there was sort
of a splat where the bullet entered his forehead and blood and I
remember regretting that I took my son and feeling anger toward the
doctor who spoke. Not that he made the movie, but he agreed to be part
of this movement, and I was repelled by the movie and it brought back
this aspect of his presentation very sharply in my memory. As regards
music, he made a rather straightforward statement like: Music will get
worse. In 1969 Rock music was getting more and more unpleasant. It was
interesting just his words-the way he expressed it " it would get worse"
acknowledging that it was already bad. Lyrics would become more openly
sexual. No new sugary romantic music would be publicized like that which
had been written before that time. All of the old music would be brought
back on certain radio stations and records for older people to hear, and
older folks would have sort of their own radio stations to hear and for
younger people, their music as it got worse and worse would be on their
stations. He seemed to indicate that one group would not hear the other
group's music. Older folks would just refuse to hear the junk that was
offered to young people, and the young people would accept the junk
because it identified them as their generation and helped them feel
distinct from the older generation. I remember at the time thinking that
would not last very long because even young kids wouldn't like the junk
when they got a chance to hear the older music that was prettier they
would gravitate toward it. Unfortunately I was wrong about that, when
the kids get through their teens and into their 20's some of them
improve their taste in music, but unfortunately he was right. They get
used to this junk and that's all they want. A lot of them can't stand
really pretty music. He went on to say that the music would carry a
message to the young and nobody would even know the message was there
they would just think it was loud music. At the time I didn't understand
quite what he meant by that, but in retrospect I think we know now what
the messages are in the music for the young. And again he was right.
This aspect was sort of summarized with the notion that entertainment
would be a tool to influence young people. It won't change the older
people, they are already set in their ways, but the changes would all be
aimed at the young who are in their formative years and the older
generation would be passing. Not only could you not change them but they
are relatively unimportant anyhow. Once they live out their lives and
are gone the younger generation being formed are the ones that would be
important for the future in the 21st century. He also indicated all the
old movies would be brought back again and I remember on hearing that
through my mind ran quickly the memory of a number of old movies. I
wondered if they would be included, the ones that I thought I would like
to see again. Along with bringing back old music and movies for older
people there were other privileges that would also be accorded older
folks: free transportation, breaks on purchases, discounts, tax
discounts, - a number of privileges just because they were older. This
was stated to be sort of a reward for the generation which had grown up
through the depression and had survived the rigors of World War II. They
had deserved it and they were going to be rewarded with all these
goodies, and the bringing back of the good old music and the good old
movies was going to help ease them through their final years in comfort.
Then the presentation began to get rather grim, because once that
generation passed, and that would be in the late 80's and early 90's
where we are now, most of that group would be gone and then gradually
things would tighten up and the tightening up would be accelerated. The
old movies and old songs would be withdrawn, the gentler entertainment
would be withdrawn.

TRAVEL RESTRICTIONS AND IMPLANTED I.D.

Travel, instead of being easy for old folks, travel
then would become very restricted. People would need permission to
travel and they would need a good reason to travel. If you didn't have a
good reason for your travel you would not be allowed to travel, and
everyone would need ID. This would at first be an ID card you would
carry on your person and you must show when you are asked for it. It was
already planned that later on some sort of device would be developed to
be implanted under the skin that would be coded specifically to identify
the individual. This would eliminate the possibility of false ID and
also eliminate the possibility of people saying "Well, I lost my ID."
The difficulty about these skin implant that ID was stated to be getting
material that would stay in or under the skin without causing foreign
body reaction whereby the body would reject it or cause infection, and
that this would have to be material on which information could be
recorded and retrieved by some sort of scanner while it was not rejected
by the body. Silicon was mentioned. Silicon at that time was thought to
be well tolerated. It was used to augment breasts. Women who felt their
breasts were too small would get silicon implants, and I guess that
still goes on. At any rate silicon was seen at that time as the
promising material to do both: to be retained in the body without
rejection and to be able to retain information retrievable by electronic
means.

FOOD CONTROL

Food supplies would come under tight control.
If population growth didn't slow down, food shortages could be created
in a hurry and people would realize the dangers of overpopulation.
Ultimately, whether the population slows down or not the food supply is
to be brought under centralized control so that people would have enough
to be well-nourished but they would not have enough to support any
fugitive from the new system. In other words, if you had a friend or
relative who didn't sign on, and growing ones own food would be
outlawed. This would be done under some sort of pretext. In the
beginning I mentioned there were two purposes for everything - one the
ostensible purpose and one the real purpose, and the ostensible purpose
here would be that growing your own vegetables was unsafe, it would
spread disease or something like that. So the acceptable idea was to
protect the consumer but the real idea was to limit the food supply and
growing your own food would be illegal. And if you persist in illegal
activities like growing your own food, then you're a criminal.

WEATHER CONTROL

There was a mention then of weather. This was
another really striking statement. He said, "We can or soon will be able
to control the weather." He said, "I'm not merely referring to dropping
iodide crystals into the clouds to precipitate rain that's already
there, but REAL control." And weather was seen as a weapon of war, a
weapon of influencing public policy. It could make rain or withhold rain
in order to influence certain areas and bring them under your control.
There were two sides to this that were rather striking. He said, "On the
one hand you can make drought during the growing season so that nothing
will grow, and on the other hand you can make for very heavy rains
during harvest season so the fields are too muddy to bring in the
harvest, and indeed one might be able to do both." There was no
statement how this would be done. It was stated that either it was
already possible or very very close to being possible.

Politics. He said that very few people really
know how government works. Something to the effect that elected
officials are influenced in ways that they don't even realize and they
carry out plans that have been made for them and they think that they
are authors of the plans. But actually they are manipulated in ways they
don't understand.

KNOW HOW PEOPLE RESPOND - MAKING THEM DO WHAT YOU WANT

Somewhere in the presentation he made two
statements that I want to insert at this time. I don't remember just
where they were made, but they're valid in terms of the general overall
view. One statement: "People can carry in their minds and act upon two
contradictory ideas at one time, provided that these two contradictory
ideas are kept far enough apart." And the other statement is, "You can
know pretty well how rational people are going to respond to certain
circumstances or to certain information that they encounter. So, to
determine the response you want you need only control the kind of data
or information that they're presented or the kinds of circumstance that
they're in; and being rational people they'll do what you want them to
do. They may not fully understand what they're doing or why."

FALSIFIED SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH

Somewhere in this connection, then, was the
statement admitting that some scientific research data could be - and
indeed has been - falsified in order to bring about desired results. And
here was said, "People don't ask the right questions. Some people are
too trusting." Now this was an interesting statement because the speaker
and the audience all being doctors of medicine and supposedly very
objectively, dispassionately scientific and science being the be all and
end-all ... well to falsify scientific research data in that setting is
like blasphemy in the church ... you just don't do that. Anyhow, out of
all of this was to come the New International Governing Body, probably
to come through the U.N. and with a World Court, but not necessarily
through those structures. It could be brought about in other ways.
Acceptance of the U.N. at that time was seen as not being as wide as was
hoped. Efforts would continue to give the United Nations increasing
importance. People would be more and more used to the idea of
relinquishing some national sovereignty. Economic interdependence would
foster this goal from a peaceful standpoint. Avoidance of war would
foster it from the standpoint of worrying about hostilities. It was
recognized that doing it peaceably was better than doing it by war. It
was stated at this point that war was "obsolete." I thought that was an
interesting phrase because obsolete means something that once was seen
as useful is no longer useful. But war is obsolete ... this being because
of the nuclear bombs war is no longer controllable. Formerly wars could
be controlled, but if nuclear weapons would fall into the wrong hands
there could be an unintended nuclear disaster. It was not stated who the
"wrong hands" are. We were free to infer that maybe this meant
terrorists, but in more recent years I'm wondering whether the wrong
hands might also include people that we've assumed that they've had
nuclear weapons all along ... maybe they don't have them. Just as it was
stated that industry would be preserved in the United States - a little
bit just in case the world wide plans didn't work out; just in case some
country or some other powerful person decided to bolt from the pack and
go his own way, one wonders whether this might also be true with nuclear
weapons. When you hear that ... he said they might fall into the wrong
hands, there was some statement that the possession of nuclear weapons
had been tightly controlled, sort of implying that anybody who had
nuclear weapons was intended to have them. That would necessarily have
included the Soviet Union, if indeed they have them. But I recall
wondering at the time, "Are you telling us, or are you implying that
this country willingly gave weapons to the Soviets?." At that time that
seemed like a terribly unthinkable thing to do, much less to admit. The
leaders of the Soviet Union seem to be so dependent on the West though,
one wonders whether there may have been some fear that they would try to
assert independence if they indeed had these weapons. So, I don't know.
It's something to speculate about perhaps ... Who did he mean when he
said, "If these weapons fall into the wrong hands"? Maybe just
terrorists. Anyhow, the new system would be brought in, if not by
peaceful cooperation - everybody willingly yielding national sovereignty
- then by bringing the nation to the brink of nuclear war. And everybody
would be so fearful as hysteria is created by the possibility of nuclear
war that there would be a strong public outcry to negotiate a public
peace and people would willingly give up national sovereignty in order
to achieve peace, and thereby this would bring in the New International
Political System. This was stated and very impressive thing to hear
then ... "If there were too many people in the right places who resisted
this, there might be a need to use one or two - possibly more - nuclear
weapons. As it was put this would be possibly needed to convince people
that "We mean business." That was followed by the statement that, "By
the time one or two of those went off then everybody - even the most
reluctant - would yield." He said something about "this negotiated peace
would be very convincing", as kind of in a framework or in a context
that the whole thing was rehearsed but nobody would know it. People
hearing about it would be convinced that it was a genuine negotiation
between hostile enemies who finally had come to the realization that
peace was better than war. In this context discussing war, and war is
obsolete, a statement was made that there were some good things about
war ... one, you're going to die anyway, and people sometimes in war get
a chance to display great courage and heroism and if they die they've
died well and if they survive they get recognition. So that in any case,
the hardships of war on soldiers are worth it because that's the reward
they get out of their warring. Another justification expressed for war
was, if you think of the many millions of casualties in WWI and WWII,
well.. suppose all those people had not died but had continued to live,
then continued to have babies. There would be millions upon millions and
we would already be overpopulated, so those two great wars served a
benign purpose in delaying over-population. But now there are
technological means for the individual and governments to control
over-population so in this regard war is obsolete. It's no longer
needed. And then again it's obsolete because nuclear weapons could
destroy the whole universe. War, which once was controllable, could get
out of control and so for these two reasons it's now obsolete.

TERRORISM

There was a discussion of terrorism.
Terrorism would be used widely in Europe and in other parts of the
world. Terrorism at that time was thought would not be necessary in the
United States. It could become necessary in the United States if the
United States did not move rapidly enough into accepting the system. But
at least in the foreseeable future it was not planned. And very benignly
on their part. Maybe terrorism would not be required here, but the
implication being that it would be indeed used if it was necessary.
Along with this came a bit of a scolding that Americans had had it too
good anyway and just a little bit of terrorism would help convince
Americans that the world is indeed a dangerous place ... or can be if we
don't relinquish control to the proper authorities.

FINANCIAL CONTROL

There was discussion of money and banking.
One statement was, "Inflation is infinite. You can put an infinite
number of zeros after any number and put the decimals points wherever
you want", as an indication that inflation is a tool of the controllers.
Money would become predominately credit. It was already ... money is
primarily a credit thing but exchange of money would be not cash or
palpable things but electronic credit signal. People would carry money
only in very small amounts for things like chewing gum and candy bars.
Just pocket sorts of things. Any purchase of any significant amount
would be done electronically. Earnings would be electronically entered
into your account. It would be a single banking system. May have the
appearance of being more than one but ultimately and basically it would
be one single banking system, so that when you got paid your pay would
be entered for you into your account balance and then when you purchased
anything at the point of purchase it would be deducted from your account
balance and you would actually carry nothing with you. Also computer
records can be kept on whatever it was you purchased so that if you were
purchasing too much of any particular item and some official wanted to
know what you were doing with your money they could go back and review
your purchases and determine what you were buying. There was a statement
that any purchase of significant size like an automobile, bicycle, a
refrigerator, a radio or television or whatever might have some sort of
identification on it so it could be traced, so that very quickly
anything which was either given away or stolen - whatever - authorities
would be able to establish who purchased it and when. Computers would
allow this to happen. The ability to save would be greatly curtailed.
People would just not be able to save any considerable degree of wealth.
There was some statement of recognition that wealth represents power and
wealth in the hands of a lot of people is not good for the people in
charge so if you save too much you might be taxed. The more you save the
higher rate of tax on your savings so your savings really could never
get very far. And also if you began to show a pattern of saving too much
you might have your pay cut. We would say, "Well, your saving instead of
spending. You really don't need all that money." That basically the idea
being to prevent people from accumulating any wealth which might have
long range disruptive influence on the system. People would be
encouraged to use credit to borrow and then also be encouraged to renege
on their debt so they would destroy their own credit. The idea here is
that, again, if you're too stupid to handle credit wisely, this gives
the authorities the opportunity to come down hard on you once you've
shot your credit. Electronic payments initially would all be based on
different kinds of credit cards ... these were already in use in 1969 to
some extent. Not as much as now. But people would have credit cards with
the electronic strip on it and once they got used to that then it would
be pointed out the advantage of having all of that combined into a
single credit card, serving a single monetary system and then they won't
have to carry around all that plastic.

SURVEILLANCE, IMPLANTS, AND TELEVISIONS THAT WATCH YOU

So the next step would be the
single card and then the next step would be to replace the single card
with a skin implant. The single card could be lost or stolen, give rise
to problems; could be exchanged with somebody else to confuse identify.
The skin implant on the other hand would be not losable or
counterfeitable or transferrable to another person so you and your
accounts would be identified without any possibility of error. And the
skin implants would have to be put some place that would be convenient
to the skin; for example your right hand or your forehead. At that time
when I heard this I was unfamiliar with the statements in the Book of
Revelation. The speaker went on to say, "Now some of you people who read
the Bible will attach significance to this to the Bible," but he went on
to disclaim any Biblical significance at all. This is just common sense
of how the system could work and should work and there's no need to read
any superstitious Biblical principals into it. As I say, at the time I
was not very familiar with the words of Revelations. Shortly after I
became familiar with it and the significance of what he said really was
striking. I'll never forget it. There was some mention, also, of
implants that would lend themselves to surveillance by providing radio
signals. This could be under the skin or a dental implant ... put in like
a filling so that either fugitives or possibly other citizens could be
identified by a certain frequency from his personal transmitter and
could be located at any time or any place by any authority who wanted to
find him. This would be particularly useful for somebody who broke out
of prison. There was more discussion of personal surveillance. One more
thing was said, "You'll be watching television and somebody will be
watching you at the same time at a central monitoring station."
Television sets would have a device to enable this. The T.V. set would
not have to be on in order for this to be operative. Also, the
television set can be used to monitor what you are watching. People can
tell what you're watching on TV and how you're reacting to what you're
watching. And you would not know that you were being watched while you
were watching your television. How would we get people to accept these
things into their homes? Well, people would buy them when they buy their
own television. They won't know that they're on there at first. This was
described by being what we now know as Cable TV to replace the antenna
TV. When you buy a TV set this monitor would just be part of the set and
most people would not have enough knowledge to know it was there in the
beginning. And then the cable would be the means of carrying the
surveillance message to the monitor. By the time people found out that
this monitoring was going on, they would also be very dependent upon
television for a number of things. Just the way people are dependent
upon the telephone today. One thing the television would be used for
would be purchases. You wouldn't have to leave your home to purchase.
You just turn on your TV and there would be a way of interacting with
your television channel to the store that you wanted to purchase. And
you could flip the switch from place to place to choose a refrigerator
or clothing. This would be both convenient, but it would also make you
dependent on your television so the built-in monitor would be something
you could not do without. There was some discussion of audio monitors,
too, just in case the authorities wanted to hear what was going on in
rooms other than where the television monitor was, and in regard to this
the statement was made, "Any wire that went into your house, for example
your telephone wire, could be used this way. I remember this in
particular because it was fairly near the end of the presentation and as
we were leaving the meeting place I said something to one of my
colleagues about going home and pulling all of the wires out of my
house.. except I knew I couldn't get by without the telephone. And the
colleague I spoke to just seemed numb. To this day I don't think he even
remembers what we talked about or what we hear that time, cause I've
asked him. But at that time he seemed stunned. Before all these changes
would take place with electronic monitoring, it was mentioned that there
would be service trucks all over the place, working on the wires and
putting in new cables. This is how people who were on the inside would
know how things were progressing.

HOME OWNERSHIP A THING OF THE PAST

Privately owned housing would become a
thing of the past. The cost of housing and financing housing would
gradually be made so high that most people couldn't afford it. People
who already owned their houses would be allowed to keep them but as
years go by it would be more and more difficult for young people to buy
a house. Young people would more and more become renters, particularly
in apartments or condominiums. More and more unsold houses would stand
vacant. People just couldn't buy them. But the cost of housing would not
come down. You'd right away think, well the vacant house, the price
would come down, the people would buy it. But there was some statement
to the effect that the price would be held high even though there were
many available so that free market places would not operate. People
would not be able to buy these and gradually more and more of the
population would be forced into small apartments. Small apartments which
would not accommodate very many children. Then as the number of real
home-owners diminished they would become a minority. There would be no
sympathy for them from the majority who dwelled in the apartments and
then these homes could be taken by increased taxes or other regulations
that would be detrimental to home ownership and would be acceptable to
the majority. Ultimately, people would be assigned where they would live
and it would be common to have non-family members living with you. This
by way of your not knowing just how far you could trust anybody. This
would all be under the control of a central housing authority. Have this
in mind in 1990 when they ask, "How many bedrooms in your house? How
many bathrooms in your house? Do you have a finished game room?." This
information is personal and is of no national interest to government
under our existing Constitution. But you'll be asked those questions and
decide how you want to respond to them.

THE ARRIVAL OF THE TOTALITARIAN GLOBAL SYSTEM

When the new system takes over
people will be expected to sign allegiance to it, indicating that they
don't have any reservations or holding back to the old system. "There
just won't be any room", he said, "for people who won't go along. We
can't have such people cluttering up the place so such people would be
taken to special places", and here I don't remember the exact words, but
the inference I drew was that at these special places where they were
taken, then they would not live very long. He may have said something
like, "disposed of humanely", but I don't remember very precisely ...
just the impression the system was not going to support them when they
would not go along with the system. That would leave death as the only
alternative. Somewhere in this vein he said there would not be any
martyrs. When I first heard this I thought it meant the people would not
be killed, but as the presentation developed what he meant was they
would not be killed in such a way or disposed of in such a way that they
could serve as inspiration to other people the way martyrs do. Rather he
said something like this. "People will just disappear." Just a few
additional items sort of thrown in here in the end which I failed to
include where they belong more perfectly. One: The bringing in of the
new system he said probably would occur on a weekend in the winter.
Everything would shut down on Friday evening and Monday morning when
everybody wakened there would be an announcement that the New System was
in place. During the process in getting the United States ready for
these changes everybody would be busier with less leisure time and less
opportunity to really look about and see what was going on around them.
Also, there would be more changes and more difficulty in keeping up as
far as one's investments. Investment instruments would be changing.
Interest rates would be changing so that it would be a difficult job
with keeping up with what you had already earned. Interesting about
automobiles; it would look as though there were many varieties of
automobiles, but when you look very closely there would be great
duplication. They would be made to look different with chrome and wheel
covers and this sort of thing, but looking closely one would see that
the same automobile was made by more than one manufacturer. This
recently was brought down to me when I was in a parking lot and saw a
small Ford - I forget the model - and a small Japanese automobile which
were identical except for a number of things like the number of holes in
the wheel cover and the chrome around the plate and the shape of the
grill. But if you looked at the basic parts of the automobile, they were
identical. They just happened to be parked side-by-side where I was
struck with this and I was again reminded of what had been said many
years ago. I'm hurrying here because I'm just about to the end of the
tape. Let me just summarize her by saying, all of these things said by
one individual at one time in one place relating to so many different
human endeavors and then to look and see how many of these actually came
about ... that is changes accomplished between then and now [1969 - 1988]
and the things which are planned for the future, I think there is no
denying that this is controlled and there is indeed a conspiracy. The
question then becomes what to do. I think first off, we must put our
faith in God and pray and ask for his guidance. And secondly do what we
can to inform other individuals as much as possible, as much as they may
be interested. Some people just don't care, because they're preoccupied
with getting along in their own personal endeavors. But as much as
possible I think we should try to inform other people who may be
interested, and again ... put our faith and trust in God and pray
constantly for his guidance and for the courage to accept what we may be
facing in the near future. Rather than accept peace and justice which we
hear so much now ... it's a cliché. Let's insist on liberty and justice for all.